How Should Your Member of Congress Respond on Syria?

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

A woman protesting U.S. intervention in Syria. (Joel Tena/Twitter)

Congressmen Charles Rangel (D-NY 13th) then Scott Garrett, (R-NJ 5th), talk about President Obama's decision to ask for congressional approval in advance of a possible U.S. military response to the apparent chemical weapons attack in Syria.


Congressman Scott Garrett and Congressman Charles Rangel

Comments [67]

Why is a military strike magically the only answer? Why can we not distribute gas masks and/or Sarin antidotes (typically atropine or Biperiden and pralidoxime)? The whole "Oh, but Iran and the NoKos will think we're weak..." is a smoke screen. The administration is peddling it b/c they don't have any *good* reasons to drag us into another war...and convenient that we're not hearing much about NSA spying on American Citizens any more....

Sep. 09 2013 05:51 PM
NABNYC from SoCal

Syria has not attacked nor threatened to attack the U.S. Therefore, if the U.S. attacks Syria, that will be an international war crime. There's no dispute.

Beyond that, citizens should tell their representatives to vote no on any U.S. War Against Syria. If the U.S. has humanitarian concerns, or if any citizen does, fine, contribute to Drs. w/o Borders or the Red Cross or any other international aid NGO. But dropping bombs on Syria and killing thousands of unarmed civilians who have no control over the warring groups is barbaric and disgusting.

Sep. 04 2013 03:08 PM
Melanie from New York City

I agree with the caller who thought Bashar al-Assad should first be declared an international war criminal. Then and only then, should America use force.

Sep. 04 2013 09:50 AM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

The Assad family dictatorship is safe in one regard. It has the KGB Putin regime to veto any UN resolution against his regime.

The photo accompanying this blog has a poster saying "Hands Off Syria" by a group calling itself "".

How does "" expect the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Syria to be stopped?

The "Hands Off", Status Quo benefits the murderers of civilians, the barbaric cannibals who defile corpses and eat the heart of the dead, the war criminals who use poison gas on men, women and children in Syria.

Sep. 04 2013 01:19 AM
mike on long island from long island

lets put our cards on the table. nobody in our govt really cares about syrian citizens, they have zero voice here. who has a strong voice? Israel, and what ever groups lobby for Israel. as bad as the assads were and are, they were never big threat to Israel. its one of the reasons we put up with syria. now all of a sudden, the assads are a problem. why, bacause they are losing their grip and Israel is very nervous about iranian influence on who ever might come out on top. i dont mind that we guarantee Israel's security, i just dont like the the BS machinations and lying about what is really going on.

Sep. 04 2013 12:06 AM
War Skeptic

Brian, you declared several times how proud you are that President Obama has gone to Congress for its backing for military action in Syria. I have never disagreed with you more. He went to Congress because his hand was forced. If public approval had swelled in response to Kerry's speech, the missiles would be on their way.

Sep. 03 2013 11:34 PM

I missed the segment but the sound byte from Congressman Rangel sounds spot-on. How easy to send /other/ people's children to bleed and die, while comfortably ensconced and well-shielded from the horrors of war oneself.
Regarding the talking-point, repeatedly trotted-out by our dear "Edward of Washington Heights", in a pathetic attempt to defend the thoroughly discredited invasion and occupation Iraq: No one disputes that Saddam Hussein /had/, in the /past, possessed chemical weapons.[1] (And, yes, it was none other than our good old Uncle Sam who, at least in part, sold those very weapons to the dreaded Hussein.) But this historical fact is a complete non-sequitur here. Don't you think President George W. Bush would have cited Saddam's past possession of poison gas, if it could have been used to justify the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims that he used to sell that war to us? The former President never did that, did he? Instead, once it became obvious that the dreaded WMD stockpiles we were ominously warned-of were not likely to ever be found, the narrative quickly changed to emphasizing how we had "liberated" the Iraqi people and how much better-off not only the region but the entire world is for being rid of Saddam Hussein. (Not that Hussein was anything-less than a brutal tyrant. But he was far from alone in that regard and did not exist in a vacuum.)

Not that I expect the likes of Edward to appreciate even this much. To say nothing of even /considering/, the mere /possibility/ that the narrative of WMD was never more than a /pretext/ in the first place.

[1] However, the assertion that Hussein "gassed his own people", /is/ disputed. In a January 2003 Op-Ed that appeared in the New York Times, Stephen C. Pelletiere argued that the Kurds of Halabja were actually caught in the cross-fire of the war with that Hussein's Iraq was fighting with /Iran/ at the time.
See 'A War Crime Or an Act of War?'

Sep. 03 2013 07:39 PM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ MMP NYC from Manhattan

Well said.

@ Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

You wrote:

"Sadaam Hussein used poison gas, a WMD... Anyone who declares that Sadaam Hussein never had WMDs or used WMDs lies."

In the words of the comedian Paul Mooney via The Chappelle Show:

"How do we know? because we wrote him a receipt."

Sep. 03 2013 05:38 PM
MMP NYC from Manhattan

The media needs a story; the arm chair warriors, chest thumpers and those with hidden agendas need a war; the arms merchants need the business. What does it matter if American children and seniors are living in poverty, families are losing their homes, teachers are laid off, hospitals are closing, once proud cities are on the verge or in bankruptcy, the available jobs consist of selling hamburgers to each other for minimum wage, and all while the infrastructure crumbles under our feet and wheels. Where are the cries of outrage? Where are the pleas for moral values?

So why not run around the world rescuing everyone but our own - and while we're bringing the unwilling our version of democracy, hit them with missiles costing a million and a half dollars each. That should work, and they'll love us for it.

In the recalled words of Orwell's 1984, "The war is not meant to be won, but meant to be continuous... The war effort is planned to keep society on the brink... The object is not victory, but to keep the hierarchical structure intact."

Sep. 03 2013 05:24 PM
Pat M from Harlem

This is the UN's problem. As useless as the UN is, the only way it will improve is by making it responsible and not doing its job for it. As sad as I am for what's happening in Syria, and as angry as I was at what happened in Rwanda, it's time the UN grew a backbone. As much as I dislike Rangel, I agree with him. Notice how the warmongering Republicans are trying to influence Obama into what could become a full blown war. Let's not fall into this trap yet again.

Sep. 03 2013 05:16 PM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

Sadaam Hussein used poison gas, a WMD on the people of Halabja Iraq. 5,000 died.

Anyone who declares that Sadaam Hussein never had WMDs or used WMDs lies.

Sep. 03 2013 04:49 PM
DTorres from Manhattan

NYT’ deletes references to AIPAC’s role in pushing strike on Syria
Phil Weiss with Max Blumenthal and Annie Robbins on September 3, 2013

Sep. 03 2013 03:15 PM
DTorres from Manhattan

Is a Chemial Attack, anymore lethal, deadly, than
Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, Atomic Bombs, White Phosphorus?

Why the hue and cry, when Assad, allegedly, used Chemical Weapons
on his own people?

Where was this outrage, when Israel used White Phosphorus against
the Palestinian people during Cast Lead?

Where was this outrage, when Saddam Hussein, used chemical weapons
against Iran, under Ronald Reagan, with the help of the CIA?

We rained White Phosphorus in Fallujah, killing so many people,
in such a horrific way.

We attacked Iraq, based on a pack of lies, by Paul Wolfowitz,
Rumsfeld, Cheney, the real president, NYTIMES lies, and we are
still paying the price.

Why should we attack, yet another Muslim country?

Syria like Iraq poses no threat direct or indirect to the USA.

Who wants the USA to attack Syria so bad, that they stage dead kids
to achieve that outcome?

We were lied to, mainsteam media, like the NYTIMES, Condi Rice, Bush II,
and we attack Iraq.

Sep. 03 2013 03:09 PM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

"Say no to a feckless Syria strike" WASHINGTON POST

Sep. 03 2013 02:25 PM

source of intelligence: u tube and other CLASSIFIED documents.
conclusion: Assad's forces did it.
solution: hit the Syrian harder and hurt more civilians.
Reason : Qatar, Isreal, US, Saudi arabia, Turkey has determined to fight IRAN in Syria to the last Syrian child.

Attacking Syria is bad for Syria, America and even Israel. It is much better to have a happy,self sufficient neighbor than a war torn devastated one, no matter how high your walls are.

Sep. 03 2013 01:54 PM

Lehrer is wrong about President Obama's decision. Had President Obama made his case to congress from the beginning and requested their approval like President Bush did, that would have been appropriate. Unfortunately while Senator Obama insisted a President needs congressional approval, President Obama disagrees. We know he believes he does not need congressional approval because of Libya. Now after putting Secretary Kerry in front of the press/public to make pleading dramatic statements about how acting is necessary and imperative - stop. This has shown President Obama to be indecisive at best. The damage is done. President Obama's standing on the international stage is irrevocably damaged. This bodes poorly for world politics for the remainder of his time in office.

Sep. 03 2013 01:45 PM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ marcus from Kensington

Why are chemical weapons a "red line"? Because Obama said so? Almost all nations with a standing military (including ours) have chemical weapons stockpiles, presumably to use some day if need be, so why a "red line", sunshine?

Sep. 03 2013 11:43 AM
marcus from Kensington

I agree
Obama did the right thing going to congress. Any limited military strike should (almost by definition) should not be time sensative.

I support the President's efforts on Syria!

100,000 human beings have been killed and chemical weapons ARE A RED LINE for all people of conscience. Mr. Obama has layed out a limited intervention that would (hopefully) degrade Asad's air capabilities and defenses. Asad depends on air delivery of his military support from Russia and Iran and a limited strike could shift he military momentum back to the rebels. Hopefully this would force a negotiated settlement. (BTW - This info come directly from guests on this show)

Asad needs to know he cannot act with impunity!

Sep. 03 2013 11:35 AM

US intervention will not improve the situation in Syria, just as it did not improve the situation in Iraq or Libya.

Sep. 03 2013 10:55 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ RUCB_Alum

WTF are you talking about Sarin for? Do you mean the Sarin the Turks captured from the Syrian Rebels in June as they tried to sneak over the border with it?

THERE IS NO LEGIT REPORTING ABOUT THE NATURE OR TYPE OF CHEMICAL WEAPON USED IN THE PURPORTED "ATTACK" YET... only speculation by a lot of people and most of it on the professional side is highly doubtful of an actual chemical attack owing to the symptoms of the victims which do not conform to a nerve or chemical irritant attack and resemble more closely those of a industrial chemical spill.

Sep. 03 2013 10:54 AM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

The UN has determined that 100,000+ have died in the fighting in Syria. Many more have been injured too.

I believe that the UN has also concluded that poison gas, a WMD, has been used in Syria - killing civilians, as Saddam Hussein used poison gas on the people of Halabja Iraq.

What is the UN going to do about this Crime Against Humantiy?

Where is the fake "anti-war" wing to protest the use of WMD's by Syria/Islamists?

Sep. 03 2013 10:48 AM
Richard from Levittown

I, like Charlie Rangel, served in the Korean War. He was an enlistee, I was drafted. Sixty years later, I agree with Mr. Rangel, first, few people have "skin" in the game of war in 21st Century America. Those of us who were participants in the first "limited war" since the atomic bomb forced us to re-think the breadth of war, just went in. But the limited war concept has lead us down a very precarious road. Perhaps we should think about a draft again, that way the wealthy and the uninterested should have to weigh the impact on them and their families. If the draft (which will never be re-instituted) were a reasonable possibility, much of this debate would be moot. Those of us who served in Korea had lived through WW 2, and had brothers and other family members in the service. We had little choice when Korea developed, my brothers had served in the Pacific, North Africa/Sicily and Italy, Persian Gulf Command, and other areas. We felt serving was our responsibility, but the country today sees little risk in its adventures to "purify" the world.

Sep. 03 2013 10:46 AM

@kate -

The Syrian gov't behavior AFTER the attack tends to make them look very guilty but I would agree that it is circumstantial. Both sides have used chem weapons in limited attacks. The reporting so far is that rebel side sarin DOES NOT contain the stabilizers that the gov't side sarin does. So it turns out to be up to the chemists.
IF the gov't did it, how they are sanctioned is up to Congress. [Presuming that Russia will always vote to NOT ACT in the Security Council] Do we smack his hand so he doesn't use these weapons again or do we decide he loses control entirely.

Sep. 03 2013 10:46 AM

"Obama took this to Congress in order to foist off the consequences of his egregious "red line" gaffe."

You're absolutely correct. Brian Lehrer's naivete is breathtaking and unbelievable.

Sep. 03 2013 10:44 AM
jay from NJ

I can't even recognize Obama (or the sheep's clothing he was wearing) any more. This issue belongs to the UN, to NATO, to the Hague. NOT an American problem. One more war for the US means one more pile of enemies. Maybe this is the Empire flexing it's "Divide & Conquer" tactics: foment civil war, then come in and clean up the mess. Us bombing one side and supplying the other might insure that the civil war continues long and hard. But usually you foment the civil war on a small political scale (chief vs chief, etc.), and from the inside. Showing up and bombing seems like an ill-conceived way to get what you want. And if a regime has already decided it's okay to use poison gas on its own people, do you think foreign intervention is going to mean ANYTHING to them? It'll only harden their resolve. I say either let Syria implode, or make "your case" to the world, and get everyone on board with this. And Charlie's right: you can be sure that the loudest voices leading the drums of war won't be sacrificing their sons or daughters to a lost cause.

Sep. 03 2013 10:43 AM
Amy from Manhattan

I'm very torn about this, but at this point, I think I'd support bombing the routes between the weapons depots (chemical & other) & the places the weapons have to be launched from, esp. if surveillance can provide info so the attack could come at a time when the targets are clear of people. I realize we can't guarantee avoiding killing anyone, but I'd hope we could minimize the chance of it.

So many people are talking about what would happen if we attacked in Syria & what would have happened if we'd done it earlier, as if there were any way to know the consequences of *any* course of action (or of not taking action).

Sep. 03 2013 10:42 AM
AliveinNJ from New Jersey

Demagogues or liars? Certainly unprincipled ideologues. The Republican hawks cannot decide are once again hoisted on their own petard! They have berated this president for 2 years for not, in Senator Graham’s words, “ending the war” in Syria. Never mind that it is a civil war or that President Obama has been trying to extricate us from 2 ill-advised wars and working to restore our economy and civil institutions. Their duplicity is egregious. They accuse the president of “backing” himself and the country into a corner by stating that the use of chemical weapons changes the dynamics of the Syrian conflict. Then they shriek that he has driven us into war! Do they not consider the use of chemical weapons heinous? Is the only course of action war? Their reflexive response to anything President Obama causes them to look like Stooges riding a tandem bike—backpedaling as fast as they pedal forward. In other words, they are chasing their own tails! When will they put the country first?

Sep. 03 2013 10:42 AM

They break it, we buy it.

Sep. 03 2013 10:41 AM
Stephen from Jersey City

I agree with Brian on President Obama's putting the issue before congress being a very good step for our democracy.

The United States has both a moral imperative and self-interest in attacking the Assad regime.

The threat is that if the US does nothing, and then Assad uses chemical weapons to kill 10,000 or 20,000 more Syrians with immunity, North Korea and others will follow.

The objective of attacking the Assad regime, would be to change the decision calculus of using chemical weapons so that it would no longer be a viable option. That is a valid objective, and requires limited military action, not war.

Sep. 03 2013 10:39 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ RUCB_Alum

Yeah, I'll take that bet and give you odds! Keep up with the UK news not the Obama press releases before you put your money down...

Sep. 03 2013 10:38 AM

@Mr. Bad

The Brits are not out. They opted to take it up again AFTER U.N. inspection reports. You think it will prove that the rebels did it AND if you are right we have no basis to act. IF you are wrong, the Syrian gov't deserves sanction. What that sanction should be is TBD.

Side bet?

Sep. 03 2013 10:35 AM

How's libya doing? Were we helpful there?

Sep. 03 2013 10:32 AM
kate from ny

Bryan, you're not even listening to people that are against the attack! Is everyone noticing how Bryan is sooo pro-attack Syria. This entire radio station is "lets destabilize syria" without even looking for the truth. We're trying to destabilize so we can control the oil and water resources. We still don't know for sure what happened and if Assad really was the one to release chem weapons. Russia, and the rest of the world think it may be a set up.

Sep. 03 2013 10:32 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC


There is no real evidence that Syrian government forces attacked with chemical weapons other than Obama/Kerry rhetoric. Can't you read between the lines? Why do you think the "evidence" hasn't been released yet...? Why are the Brits out? They have better intelligence assets than anyone in Syria. They know it's a set up - this allows Obama to bow out gracefully. It was the right play but let's not talk "morality" or what is required by " international law" because it's all hot air.

Sep. 03 2013 10:31 AM
steve greenfield from Long Island

One strategy has not been discussed. Rather than attack Syria ourselves, why not arm the rebels to the teeth so they can fight fully against Assad? We can direct weapons to our allies, not Jihadists. From what I read, they are separated into different districts of the country generally.

Sep. 03 2013 10:31 AM
Karen from NYC

I remember the Bay of Pigs (I was 9 years old); Vietnam and the domino theory; Lebanon in 1981; both Iraq wars; the U.S. proxy interventions in Central America.

When has U.S. military intervention ever worked? We hear the same rhetoric time after time "national security; human rights; thin edge of the wedge" -- and are drawn time and time again into wars that we cannot and do not win.

We do need to address the use by Assad of chemical weapons, but a military attack is not the way to do that. Are bombs the only language that our leaders understand?

I was a volunteer for Obama, but will tell my congressional representative to vote "No!" on military intervention.

Sep. 03 2013 10:31 AM
Michael from Manhattan

I find your take on Obama ceding the decision on Syria to Congress to be very naive. Obama didn't do it out of altruism or belief in the Constitution: as Obama himself said, "I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization." He took this to Congress in order to foist off the consequences of his egregious "red line" gaffe. And in that sense, and in that sense only, it was a brilliant political move.

Sep. 03 2013 10:31 AM
Jarmice from Manhattan

It takes a real super-partisan to announce such pride in this President over this. He would not have asked for a "conversation" if he had any support whatsoever (outside of Israel who would like us to do some dirty-work over there.) He was backed into a corner, period. He is so disingenuous on this it is striking.

Sep. 03 2013 10:30 AM
Ed from Larchmont

One difference is that countries are lining up in preparation for this attack, including Russia on the other side. Way too dangerous.

Sep. 03 2013 10:30 AM
Rich P from Long Island

I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Lehrer on Obama's calling for a congressional debate. I think that it's high time congress put its neck on the line (sort of) and maybe, just maybe even reflect the will of the people.

Sep. 03 2013 10:30 AM
CK from Yorktown

First: how is Syria our problem? Isn't that why there is a UN? And 2.) I rarely if ever agree with Rangel but he's right on target here.

Brian: you said you're so proud of the President? Why? Because he's gone to the correct channels and is asking congress? You're proud that he's doing what he's supposed to do?

Sep. 03 2013 10:29 AM
Robert from Manhattan

Why does Syria have stock piles of chemical weapons in the first place? They signed an international agreement outlawing them, and they get to keep them? What happened?

Sep. 03 2013 10:29 AM
Ellen from Manhattan

How low the bar has become, Brian, that you are proud of our President for taking the question to Congress! Now we have to be proud that the President actually makes a nod to the Constitution, which, as far as I know, still gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war? And what of international law? Where does Congress get the power to authorize an act of aggression against a country that has not attacked us? This is an international question, and needs an international response, and, I am thankful to see, the rest of the world seems to have figured out that military responses to human rights crises simply don't work. Time to find some new tools to solve conflicts in this world.

Sep. 03 2013 10:29 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The bishops of the region are pleading that the U.S. not strike, warning that it could lead to a larger conflict. Pope Francis is pleading for negotation instead, and has made Saturday a day of fasting and prayer for peace in the area, especially Syria.

Sep. 03 2013 10:28 AM

Thanks, BL, for the smackdown of Garrett's electioneering. Rather than recognize the magnitude of the problem, the Right is looking to make points for some future election. They are cynical misusers of the public trust.

IF the gas attack of 8/21 was conducted with Syrian government weapons - and right now it looks like it was - the world needs to act to remove the threat of those weapons and end their future production.

Sep. 03 2013 10:28 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

Oh c'mon Brian, this was a well played political turn by Obama, not a moral position. America has "values" not "interests"... spare me. Obama is a great poll watcher and when politicians talk about "America" they mean their other government pals... The overwhelming majority of Americans have zero interest in military intervention in Syria.

Sep. 03 2013 10:28 AM
laura miller from north bergen

1. If we cannot bomb chemical weapons sites but degrade conventional capability, wouldn't that push the Assad regime to use chemical weapons even more?

2. Are there no non-military means at this point to penalize the Assad regime for using chemical weapons? The debate seems to cast this as an either/or debate: bomb him so he won't get away with it or do nothing.

Sep. 03 2013 10:27 AM

Looks like Obama has found an issue to unite Democrats and Republicans in the House. Another campaign goal accomplish :-)

Sep. 03 2013 10:26 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The president put it up to Congress only because he had no choice.

Sep. 03 2013 10:24 AM
Robert from NYC

I haven't seen it here yet but the foreign press has photos of Kerry having a friendly dinner with Assaad back in 2009. Looked a bit chummy. I guess things change.

Sep. 03 2013 10:24 AM
Kate from ny

Who is this guy? Wow, go Rangal! Thank for speaking the truth. WTF is wrong w Obama and Kerry? Are they drinking the koolaid and believe that a Bush/Rumsfield/Cheny approach is now the right way? Why are we helping the religious extremists to over throw the secular? We're going there because the president is probably being threatened by corpocracy to secure the oil and water resources.

Sep. 03 2013 10:21 AM
Estelle from Brooklyn

We can't bomb the gas stockpile since that could release the gas. Any bombing we do will kill Syrian civilians (good old collateral damage). Will that make us the good guys?

Sep. 03 2013 10:21 AM

Fourteen hundred dead in a single attack using an internationally outlawed weapon. This is the UN's bailiwick but Russia will block united action.

Bullsh*t, Mr. Garrett.

Sep. 03 2013 10:21 AM
BK from Hoboken

I don't usually agree with Rangel but his first comment and BL's glib remark about bombs and BBQs is right on. Old timers like Rangel are more aware of the costs of war than many others.
That said, I think we all do have to look at this and make a stand on the use of chemical weapons. To me the question is just "how much" and how do we keep ourselves from getting stuck on that road that Ryan Crocker suggested.

Sep. 03 2013 10:19 AM
Ed from Larchmont

If bombing would stop the use of chemical weapons, fine, but how will bombing stop it? The threat of the bombing is probably just as good as a deterrent to using chemical weapons.

Sep. 03 2013 10:18 AM

Scott Garrett (sp?) is making stuff up! Deciding to WAIT for Congress to convene, advise and consent IS NOT an 180 degree about face.

Is he a lawyer, false in one, false in all.

Sep. 03 2013 10:17 AM
Jean from midtown

Does Brian really know that the military does not recruit from Harvard? Harvard has a pretty active ROTC group, that was a huge issue during the Don't Ask Don't Tell debate.

Sep. 03 2013 10:17 AM
Katherine Jackson from LES

BRAVO CONGRESSMAN RANGEL!!!!!!!!!! The most articulate argument against this proposed folly that I've heard yet. This is an international issue not an issue involving US security. But here we are, going it pretty much alone, drawing red lines and starting a war that might involve somebody else's kids being killed. Kids with no other options. And what he says about Iraq, too. "Nobody says they're sorry." And what he says about the true threat to security in the US: poverty, unemployment, health care....

All so true, thank you, Congressman Rangel!

Sep. 03 2013 10:16 AM
Robert from nyc

WOW, I agree with Charlie Rangel!?

Sep. 03 2013 10:13 AM
Adam Holland from Brooklyn

I've been a strong supporter of Charles Rangel throughout his career, but listening to his views about Syria, I've come to the sad conclusion that it's time for him to go. He's been in Congress too long.

Sep. 03 2013 10:13 AM
PT from Brooklyn

Love Rangel or hate him, he's making a lot of sense.

Sep. 03 2013 10:13 AM

...and, I generally agree with Rangel's positions.

Sep. 03 2013 10:11 AM

Let Syria's chem weapon stockpile fall into the hands of AQ and you will laughing out of the other side of your face.

Any U.S. action should be to eliminate the stockpiles and production, not to change the regime. McCain's idea - regime change - is too destabilizing and it is NOT our place to choose the Syrian government for the Syrians.

I am for international action to take away Syria's chemical inventory and I hope the Congress votes to do just that.

Sep. 03 2013 10:11 AM

Serving in Congress is a privilege NOT a "lifestyle"!!

Sep. 03 2013 10:08 AM

He said a mouthful: "Over 40 years in congress..."

Charles Rangel: The definition of what's wrong with our government.


Sep. 03 2013 10:04 AM

"Someone please buy Obama some Nicorette gum"

Someone also needs to buy Obama a new spine and give him a testosterone injection.

Obama needs to stop acting like George Costanza from Seinfeld and start acting like a Commander in Chief.

Sep. 03 2013 10:03 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan


"A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News." CHUCK TODD, MSNBC

Good heavens, who knows what will come from the next stroll out to sneak a cigarette. Tax Cuts demands to Congress??!!
Someone please buy Obama some Nicorette gum before he makes any more embarrassing flip flops during a nicotine fit.

Sep. 03 2013 09:58 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.